julianlaboy

Math and Ontology

Recommended Posts

I failed to mention numbers themselves in my post above. Well, not so much "numbers" alone but the concepts and principles underlying mathematics, said concepts & principles including numbers...

 

Numbers, like life, simply are. There is no meaning of life and there is no meaning of numbers. Like the number 42, for instance -- 42 just is. (It is indicative of a particular position in a ordered sequence regardless of the language or base used to express it.)

 

Both life and numbers do have purposes...

 

I agree that "There is no meaning of life and there is no meaning of numbers". Because of that I don't agree that life and numbers have purposes. At least I am not in a position as a human being to know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree also with you when you speak of "the enlightened". That is why I said that I simply can't say anything about what goes beyond language.

 

As for the reconciliation of the following:

- considering stuff "out there" or "exists independetly of"

- the notion that there are no "correct" or "normal" perceptions.

 

I would say that we are creating worlds (no translating anything, which also is a response to the first post by Everything). We create a world (or worlds) made of consensus of what we call correct or normal, for example, the notion that there is an "out there" and so on. Going beyond that also leaves us to the "enlightened" theme.

 

When you say "where as I believe that there exists a bit more interplay taking place... that is beliefs tints what we conceptualize and experience as we conceptualize and experience stuff... sometimes even changing the experiences altogether", I do not think we are thinking differently.

 

And, what is "FWIIW" ? Sorry, Spanish is my primary language and haven't seen that yet. hehe

 

" Sorry, Spanish is my primary language ..."

FWIIW - for what it is worth ... ROTFLOL - rolling on the floor laughing out loud...

Spanish is my primary language too! Why be sorry about it :-)?

 

If you can, look for the conduit metaphor pdf (http://www.biolinguagem.com/biolinguagem_antropologia/reddy_1979_conduit_metaphor.pdf)

 

In a way we each live in singular separate world that we each create... the only way to experience stuff is for us to recreate the artifact in our world though we sometimes change and forget to take into account what we have done... the flaws in the artifact observed by us may be the result of what we have done... The idea that what we have made results from a consensus disregards the fact that to accurately evaluate something we have to first accurate recreating it. That is to comment on what I have stated, you first have to accurately get what I have stated otherwise your comments would focus on something else... For me in a conversation there exists the intended meaning, the perceived meaning and the shared meaning... when these are identical copies of each other its a bit irrelevant which one we take... but when they are different the relevant meaning depends on the focus taken... sometimes its irrelevant what was understood, for what be relevant is understanding what was intended. Sometimes its the other way around, what was understood is what be relevant regardless of the original intent... then sometimes neither the intended nor the perceived meaning matter much for the focus centers on the shared experience.

 

BTW - do not think of an apple still gets you to think about some apple and of schemas of how not to do what you be doing... its much easier to just think of an elephant and focus on doing what you do by just doing the action ... as someone once told me "If you did not think something how did you manage to write that you did not think about it...

 

I hold to know what you mean and just want to expose something quite common... that we may better focus and understand what be going on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Sorry, Spanish is my primary language ..."

FWIIW - for what it is worth ... ROTFLOL - rolling on the floor laughing out loud...

Spanish is my primary language too! Why be sorry about it :-)?

 

If you can, look for the conduit metaphor pdf (http://www.biolinguagem.com/biolinguagem_antropologia/reddy_1979_conduit_metaphor.pdf)

 

In a way we each live in singular separate world that we each create... the only way to experience stuff is for us to recreate the artifact in our world though we sometimes change and forget to take into account what we have done... the flaws in the artifact observed by us may be the result of what we have done... The idea that what we have made results from a consensus disregards the fact that to accurately evaluate something we have to first accurate recreating it. That is to comment on what I have stated, you first have to accurately get what I have stated otherwise your comments would focus on something else... For me in a conversation there exists the intended meaning, the perceived meaning and the shared meaning... when these are identical copies of each other its a bit irrelevant which one we take... but when they are different the relevant meaning depends on the focus taken... sometimes its irrelevant what was understood, for what be relevant is understanding what was intended. Sometimes its the other way around, what was understood is what be relevant regardless of the original intent... then sometimes neither the intended nor the perceived meaning matter much for the focus centers on the shared experience.

 

BTW - do not think of an apple still gets you to think about some apple and of schemas of how not to do what you be doing... its much easier to just think of an elephant and focus on doing what you do by just doing the action ... as someone once told me "If you did not think something how did you manage to write that you did not think about it...

 

I hold to know what you mean and just want to expose something quite common... that we may better focus and understand what be going on...

 

ROTFLOL !!?? Hahaha I said sorry out of courtesy because you had to give me some of your time for such a silly question, hehe.

 

Where are you from? I thought et-thoughts was because of ET, the movie.

 

"The idea that what we have made results from a consensus disregards the fact that to accurately evaluate something we have to first accurate recreating it". I still hold that we first "create" out of what we intend/perceive/mean/understand we have. I don't believe we are re-creating anything. That still can manage to argue in favor of our language (not just words) consensus and the whole intend/perceive/meaning comment. Again, I probably am speaking as an "unenlightened". However, we are born in a world of language and that is why we can think of something and still manage to write that I didn't think about it. We are still focusing and understanding what is going on, but in a relative manner. I think of something when I hear/see/smell/taste/feel what we call an apple. But I cannot go beyond our senses (mind-body/emotions-reason) and give it a truly objective and absolute nature/conceptualization. If what we call a pion (subatomic particle) could have eyes, the whole apple-is-something thing probably wouldn't make sense to it. The pion would only see a chaotic kind of pattern (or so we think).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROTFLOL !!?? Hahaha I said sorry out of courtesy because you had to give me some of your time for such a silly question, hehe.

 

Where are you from? I thought et-thoughts was because of ET, the movie.

 

"The idea that what we have made results from a consensus disregards the fact that to accurately evaluate something we have to first accurate recreating it". I still hold that we first "create" out of what we intend/perceive/mean/understand we have. I don't believe we are re-creating anything. That still can manage to argue in favor of our language (not just words) consensus and the whole intend/perceive/meaning comment. Again, I probably am speaking as an "unenlightened". However, we are born in a world of language and that is why we can think of something and still manage to write that I didn't think about it. We are still focusing and understanding what is going on, but in a relative manner. I think of something when I hear/see/smell/taste/feel what we call an apple. But I cannot go beyond our senses (mind-body/emotions-reason) and give it a truly objective and absolute nature/conceptualization. If what we call a pion (subatomic particle) could have eyes, the whole apple-is-something thing probably wouldn't make sense to it. The pion would only see a chaotic kind of pattern (or so we think).

 

I be from Mexico, how about yourself? BTW I realize many think that what they think is the true story and rarely bothering to validate that what they think actually corresponds with what happens to be... et-thoughts is made up of my initials 'et' and a word 'thoughts' meaning the thoughts I have ... :-) I realize that many may think of 'extra terrestrial' when they see the initials and make up all sort of other stories... this is actually just an example of how individuals 'unilaterally' and arbitrarily determine stuff for themselves (rather than follow a consensus approach). This sort of thing can happen all the time... with all sort of 'words' . I think I mentioned earlier that the absolute meaning of a word stems from it use... not from some consensus reached by those who use it... take an encrypted message where certain words have certain meanings... someone who knows the code can get to the intended message while someone who does not know the code understands something else... one either decrypts the actual intended message or something else depending on the decryption schemata used. In certain domains the encryption even contains validating schemes to ensure that the message was not altered and was complete... personally I had to develop validating mechanisms to ensure that what I perceive corresponds to whats actually there because of the highly likelihood for me to see something that isn't there... dyslexia is a sort of 'blindness' that can lead to develop higher sensitivity in other domains like sounds and touch... paradoxically the more you believe to get it right the more you expose yourself to get it wrong and the more you wonder about it being right the more you will likely get it right... The example "do not think of an apple" sought to expose the fact that it leads to thinking of an apple and a struggle not to think about it rather than just focusing on what one desires to accomplish. Strictly specking the claim "I didn't think X" is actually a lie, a false statement. I hold we need to be careful with what we think so that we cultivate what we desire to cultivate rather than the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I be from Mexico, how about yourself? BTW I realize many think that what they think is the true story and rarely bothering to validate that what they think actually corresponds with what happens to be... et-thoughts is made up of my initials 'et' and a word 'thoughts' meaning the thoughts I have ... :-) I realize that many may think of 'extra terrestrial' when they see the initials and make up all sort of other stories... this is actually just an example of how individuals 'unilaterally' and arbitrarily determine stuff for themselves (rather than follow a consensus approach). This sort of thing can happen all the time... with all sort of 'words' . I think I mentioned earlier that the absolute meaning of a word stems from it use... not from some consensus reached by those who use it... take an encrypted message where certain words have certain meanings... someone who knows the code can get to the intended message while someone who does not know the code understands something else... one either decrypts the actual intended message or something else depending on the decryption schemata used. In certain domains the encryption even contains validating schemes to ensure that the message was not altered and was complete... personally I had to develop validating mechanisms to ensure that what I perceive corresponds to whats actually there because of the highly likelihood for me to see something that isn't there... dyslexia is a sort of 'blindness' that can lead to develop higher sensitivity in other domains like sounds and touch... paradoxically the more you believe to get it right the more you expose yourself to get it wrong and the more you wonder about it being right the more you will likely get it right... The example "do not think of an apple" sought to expose the fact that it leads to thinking of an apple and a struggle not to think about it rather than just focusing on what one desires to accomplish. Strictly specking the claim "I didn't think X" is actually a lie, a false statement. I hold we need to be careful with what we think so that we cultivate what we desire to cultivate rather than the opposite.

 

I am from Puerto Rico! Tough things happening on Mexico's politics. I have a friend posting a lot of pictures of people burning voting ballots !!

 

Ok, let's go. Hehe... "this is actually just an example of how individuals 'unilaterally' and arbitrarily determine stuff for themselves (rather than follow a consensus approach)", and I agree completely. Individuality and creativity are not ignored in the consensus approach. You used the example of an apple, and I imagine a red or green kind of circle (debatable, hehe) that tastes tart (love the green ones), that have thicker skin that other fruits (hate the things on red ones), etc. There is a consensus for the ideal/statistical apple (that's how we understand each other). But my apple had a stick and a leaf, and some may imagine the thing with tree and all or with whatever changes, including color, taste, etc.

 

"the absolute meaning of a word stems from it use...": I agree, but I thinks that that "absolute" stems from the consensus (so it's really a relative). Its use is what a (what we call) human uses it for. Some eat apples, others drink it, others ignore it, etc. I didn't know what ROTFLOL meant. I learned, thanks to you, what its utility is for and, by reaching a consensus (by agreeing with the definition and your use- and other's), I accept and will use it in a similar way that you did.

 

You mentioned dyslexia. People with brain lesions (for example, frontal lobe lesions which "impairs the use of reason" if heavily "damaged") may think differently and have problems with our consensus of how things are. Because of their difficulty with maintaining our consensus (of words, meanings, intentions, all kinds of content) some people say that they are "out of reality". We see change in them because they no longer find useful our ways of seeing things. However, they still live in a world of language, so what changes in them is how they prefer to use it. That's why we "see" personality changes, emotional and rational changes, among others.

 

Brains are maps that come and go, and no specific area relates absolutely to a function like "reason", for example. That's why you may have a lesion in the frontal lobe (strongly correlated to the use of reason), but still "use reason". It's just a different way of using it, but still in the world of consensus. How we interpret it is just something else.

 

I don't know if I am making sense anymore. I have to sleep and go to work. :) hehe

 

Oh! And of course, "I hold we need to be careful with what we think so that we cultivate what we desire to cultivate rather than the opposite": I agree. :)

 

(Edit) I feel like I'm rambling through different ideas... Sorry!

Edited by julianlaboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You used the example of an apple, and I imagine a red or green kind...

 

 

of circle (debatable, hehe) that tastes tart (love the green ones), that have thicker skin that other fruits (hate the things on red ones), etc. There is a consensus for the ideal/statistical apple (that's how we understand each other). But my apple had a stick and a leaf, and some may imagine the thing with tree and all or with whatever changes, including color, taste, etc.

 

"the absolute meaning of a word stems from it use...": I agree, but I thinks that that "absolute" stems from the consensus (so it's really a relative). Its use is what a (what we call) human uses it for. Some eat apples, others drink it, others ignore it, etc. I didn't know what ROTFLOL meant. I learned, thanks to you, what its utility is for and, by reaching a consensus (by agreeing with the definition and your use- and other's), I accept and will use it in a similar way that you did.

 

You mentioned dyslexia. People with brain lesions (for example, frontal lobe lesions which "impairs the use of reason" if heavily "damaged") may think differently and have problems with our consensus of how things are. Because of their difficulty with maintaining our consensus (of words, meanings, intentions, all kinds of content) some people say that they are "out of reality". We see change in them because they no longer find useful our ways of seeing things. However, they still live in a world of language, so what changes in them is how they prefer to use it. That's why we "see" personality changes, emotional and rational changes, among others.

 

Brains are maps that come and go, and no specific area relates absolutely to a function like "reason", for example. That's why you may have a lesion in the frontal lobe (strongly correlated to the use of reason), but still "use reason". It's just a different way of using it, but still in the world of consensus. How we interpret it is just something else.

 

I don't know if I am making sense anymore. I have to sleep and go to work. :) hehe

 

Oh! And of course, "I hold we need to be careful with what we think so that we cultivate what we desire to cultivate rather than the opposite": I agree. :)

 

(Edit) I feel like I'm rambling through different ideas... Sorry!

 

Note that I said DO NOT think of an apple and what did you go do? thought of an apple... the point I sought to make was that rather than not thinking about what we do not want, we focus on thinking about what we do want. If you agree that "the absolute meaning of a word stems from it use..." then to be congruent you would think that the absolute meaning of a word stems from its use... and is set each time it is used.... and if the listener use, corresponds to the speakers use, then the listener understands what the speaker stated otherwise the listener understands whatever story the listener chooses to construct--- If we logically go into the relative-absolute path you will end up an absolutists ... maybe that can be expanded latter... as well as the topic of dyslexia and 'prain' damage... for now I will say everyone has a level of dyslexia ... have to sleep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, again! :)

 

"rather than not thinking about what we do not want, we focus on thinking about what we do want", what about non-conscious thoughts? In my opinion, "want" is more complicated than that. We would have to bring awareness and mindfulness, and their different degrees and differences between people, to the conversation. I'm only telling this to show again that I support individual differences in the whole consensus argument.

 

"to be congruent you would think that the absolute meaning of a word stems from its use... and is set each time it is used.... and if the listener use, corresponds to the speakers use, then the listener understands what the speaker stated otherwise the listener understands whatever story the listener chooses to construct": I disagree. There is no absolute meaning to a word, other than what we coordinate the word (its content) to be. Again, there are co-ordinations (other word for consensus) of meanings between us. We are still in a world full of language and different construction of words, but things change and have a history and circumstances that again bring change (sometimes). I don't see how that would turn me an absolutist. Things are not set each time they are used because we have some preconceptions about what "things" are. Everything probably just is, but we do see "things" or "objects" specifically as humans. We define them and we find uses to them based on their definitions (which may vary from person to person, from time to time, etc.) and vice-versa. Because of our need and use of language (which is relative to many things) I think is really difficult, if not impossible, to go beyond our condition of humans living in a language world and explain, think, talk, etc., of what those "things" or "objects" really are. That's the point here, we think, explain, talk, etc., in language (again, which is relative to many things) and there may not be an exit to that (other than the whole "enlightened" thing that I'm sad to say have not experienced).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, again! :)

 

"rather than not thinking about what we do not want, we focus on thinking about what we do want", what about non-conscious thoughts? In my opinion, "want" is more complicated than that. We would have to bring awareness and mindfulness, and their different degrees and differences between people, to the conversation. I'm only telling this to show again that I support individual differences in the whole consensus argument.

 

"to be congruent you would think that the absolute meaning of a word stems from its use... and is set each time it is used.... and if the listener use, corresponds to the speakers use, then the listener understands what the speaker stated otherwise the listener understands whatever story the listener chooses to construct": I disagree. There is no absolute meaning to a word, other than what we coordinate the word (its content) to be. Again, there are co-ordinations (other word for consensus) of meanings between us. We are still in a world full of language and different construction of words, but things change and have a history and circumstances that again bring change (sometimes). I don't see how that would turn me an absolutist. Things are not set each time they are used because we have some preconceptions about what "things" are. Everything probably just is, but we do see "things" or "objects" specifically as humans. We define them and we find uses to them based on their definitions (which may vary from person to person, from time to time, etc.) and vice-versa. Because of our need and use of language (which is relative to many things) I think is really difficult, if not impossible, to go beyond our condition of humans living in a language world and explain, think, talk, etc., of what those "things" or "objects" really are. That's the point here, we think, explain, talk, etc., in language (again, which is relative to many things) and there may not be an exit to that (other than the whole "enlightened" thing that I'm sad to say have not experienced).

 

julianlaboy,

 

I see "non-conscious thoughts" as whispering 'angels', some whisper we do good stuff (that be done by the angels - the good angels), some whisper we do bad stuff (thats be the devils or the bad angels), we get to choose what way we go and what path we cultivate... (or course assuming we individuals choose rather than the destiny we have). I too support individual differences in the whole consensus argument... some are right some are wrong it all depends on what each happens to hold to be and happens to be. The point I am making is that to understand the word and the absolute meaning of a word we have to look at its actual use with the caveat that it is used by the speaker and used by the listener and it is used every time we think of it... If you want to understand what I said by a given word you have to understand the meaning I associated to that word when I said it... aware and mindful of the fact that each time said it it may be different, its absolute meaning set once and for all every time its used. Hope you see what I mean... tell you what lets do a little exercise please indulge me this. First lets ensure we understand a point, then comment on what we each think about it. The exercise follows a strict pattern... first someone makes a pint, now before commenting on the point, the other has to first demonstrate to the satisfaction of the first they understood the original point made, once this ensures both be talking about the same point, the second comments on the point. This may involve temporarily suspending and considering stuff we may find questionable. If you want to take the lead and focus on "the whole consensus argument" I will follow, if you want me to take the lead and focus on "the authoritative reality" I will lead. Either way eventually we will get to the two if we so choose...

 

I see your disagreement stems from what you choose and hold to believe which paradoxically happens to be self contradictory and denies reality, not because I say so but because it happens to be so! If you accept the invitation, I will do all I can to show and help you see what I see. A relativists has a difficult time with the absolutist... for when they choose to reject the absolutist way they make evident that they are not truly relativist and when they choose to accept the absolutist way well they reject the relativist way... so they exists with paradoxes they can't resolve and even resort to absolute claims like 'there is no absolute truth"... The absolutists can ALWAYS choose the absolute truth to be the relative truth and end up being both an absolutists and a relativists.

 

 

BTW "because we have some preconceptions about what 'things' are" and choose to set each time the things according to our preconceptions does not alter the fact that each time we choose and set the things we have a choice and according to how we choose it, we be setting them anew. It is convenient not to change some stuff but we always choose anew what way to go...

 

FWIIW we humans live immersed in multiple 'worlds' and can go beyond the limitations of words, and worlds... need I demonstrate it? 'there may not be an exit to..." said little about the possibility of creating a window and a doorway or the fact that there may be no need for the exit to exist at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I talked with a friend of mine about mathematics. In general, he was saying that the content of math exists "out there". That we gave names to numbers and equations, but that it does not need us to exist. Numbers and their rules exist "a priori" (before we even know about them) rather than "a posteriori" (math needing us and how we experience it). He said the same about abstract/analytical logic. Math exists out there.

 

I said that math is just a game. We set the rules, we give names and that now exists by its own. Numbers and their rules have a circular manner to them because that is our way of explaining how we experience what we call the world. Euclidean geometry was refuted by present-day geometry, physics is giving way to certain "nonsense", among other examples of how numbers and math change with time. Of course, 2 + 2 = 4, and an alien will get it. But that will happen only when we explain (if they could understand our language) that game's rules. To my understanding, it's impossible to go beyond what we are (mind-body + structurally coupling with our circumstances). Because of that, saying that there is an ideal 2, or an ideal 4, or an ideal 2 + 2 = 4 is outside of what we can say about what we call world. I believe that there is a problem with saying what is "out there" because what is out there has everything to do with what we are.

 

What do you think? smile.gif

 

On the subject of 2+2=4, have a look at Is Arithmetic Consistent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites